Talk:Unnamed insectoids
Class K? What is the citation for Mars being a class K world? It might be, but was it stated as such in either of the two episodes? My belief is not, and that it is supposition based on that may or may not be correct as to Mars. I suggest unless the cited episodes call Mars class K that the designation be moved to a background comment. Also, was the insect actually in both episodes? Aholland 02:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) :The insect was seen in both episodes. As to where the class K comes from, no idea. --Jörg 09:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) ::Check the Class K page. Subcommander Tal 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC) :I understand how class K was described in , but Mars was terraformed such that by 2155, conditions in the lowlands of the Martian surface were sufficiently altered to allow people to roam freely without environmental suits. ( ) So it might have been class K beforehand, or it might not have since we don't have the exact technical specs for class K beyond the simple summary. And after 2155, it would seem to be some other class. I'm still left with the impression that Mars cannot be called class K other than as background speculation. Without more I'll modify it appropriately when I find the time. Aholland 01:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Merge Seeing the description "Martian insect" apparently didn't appear onscreen and is not from a valid production source (Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology), I think this should be merged into Unnamed insectoids, ofc with the appropriate bg note. Kennelly (talk) 09:33, September 28, 2016 (UTC) :"Insectoids" so far only has (seen to be) sentient insectoids. Maybe Unnamed non-humanoids (unknown era) would be a better fit. --LauraCC (talk) 18:56, October 17, 2016 (UTC) ::Heck, not only should this one go in unnamed non-humanoids, so should that one member of unnamed Useless page that. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:14, October 19, 2016 (UTC) :With "insectoids" as the heading, not a page name. Merge. --LauraCC (talk) 17:54, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Further merge Unnamed non-humanoids (24th century)#Klingon food insect This is identified as resembling an insect, too. --LauraCC (talk) 16:53, October 13, 2017 (UTC) : Just move it manually. Note to the "to ...." and "from ...." in the summary lines. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:55, October 13, 2017 (UTC) Oh, I can do that? I keep thinking there's some policy thing that I should recall which complicates it. --LauraCC (talk) 16:56, October 13, 2017 (UTC) I hope I remembered all the redirects I was supposed to change. --LauraCC (talk) 17:07, October 13, 2017 (UTC) Sorted this page by centuries - having them all in one place (for now) makes it easier to sort. I never would have realized that they all could be categorized by century without unknowns if I hadn't done this. Shouldn't the primary target for the captain be Insectoid ship personnel? --LauraCC (talk) 17:20, October 13, 2017 (UTC) ::I still think having all this stuff on this page is the inferior approach. We have no clue as to how the term "insectoid" is actually defined, nor about if half of these things are even technically qualify as regular insects (not everything that doesn't look fish or tetrapod is!). There's no specific need to complicate the standard ordering of grouping stuff by specific species and list unknown ones on a consistently organized set of pages, in favor of having a more easy to miss subpage populated based on guesses and judgement calls. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:01, October 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Note that this is one reason why we're working on redirects to each unnamed "object" (person, planet, ship, etc). That allows us to have better incoming links to each of these and ensure that these things are all linked from appropriate places, which should allow their discovery even more. :::One big issue with randomly moving things though is that the inks to them are often not appropriately moved/cleaned up in a timely manner by the person(s) moving those items. -- sulfur (talk) 13:14, October 15, 2017 (UTC) ::But they're (mostly) not linked at the pages they were removed from, so I don't see how the new system helps much in this case. Creatures on this page remain hard to find for someone not already having a link to them, because the page itself is hard to find within the bigger system for documenting unknown beings. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:31, October 15, 2017 (UTC) : So instead of complaining about it, make it work. We've made the process simpler, use it to its advantage. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:44, October 15, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm not going to unilaterally hit revert on hours of someone's work, which is basically what you're implying I should do except I'm guessing that might have just been a knee jerk without reading things very closely. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:06, October 15, 2017 (UTC) : That is the complete opposite of what I said. Use the redirect links to your advantage so people can find stuff. We literally cannot dumb down this process and objective any further than we already have. My god, use some common sense. Build the web. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:15, October 15, 2017 (UTC) ::Okay, I overreacted there, sorry. The point I'm trying to make is that while Sulfur helpfully pointed out a way to migitate the effects of the change, this wouldn't affect the bigger issue I'm seeing, which is that this page dramatically complicates page tree structure for unnamed aliens. The best linking in the world is only ever going to be a workaround for that, not fix it. I got dragged into a discussion about linking, but I was still thinking about the bigger point, which is where the revert comment came from. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:52, October 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::The problem with a less complicated tree is that we run into the problem we had before... monolithic, mega-over-sized singles lists that are essentially unmaintainable. -- sulfur (talk) 01:30, October 16, 2017 (UTC)